IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY CRP.No.115/2016 (SC) C/W CRP.No.114/2016 IN CRP.No.115/2016 BETWEEN:
M/S. USHA PEN MART (USHA PEN CENTER) REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT. INDRA DEVI, MAJOR IN AGE, W/O. SRI RAJMAL, NEW CORPORATION NO.134, BELLI BASAVANNA TEMPLE STREET, (MAMULPET), BENGALURU – 560 053. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: H.J. SANGHVI, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI MOOLCHAND S/O OTTEMAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A NO.105/2, VAGESWARI BUILDING, MAMULPET, BENGALURU – 560V053. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K.P. THRIMURTHY, ADVOCATE) ***** THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2016 PASSED ON IA IN SC NO.567/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM AND XXIII ASCJ, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA FILED U/O VII RULE 11 OF CPC., IN CRP.No.114/2016 BETWEEN:
M/S. MADANLAL BHOORMAL & CO., REP. BY ITS SRI CHETHAN, S/O. LATE MADANLAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NEW CORPORATION NO.9, KUBAR SAHUJI LANE, (DIVAN SURAPPA LANE), BENGALURU – 560 053. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: H.J. SANGHVI, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI MOOLCHAND S/O OTTEMAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A NO.105/2, VAGESWARI BUILDING, MAMULPET, BENGALURU – 560 053. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K.P. THRIMURTHY, ADVOCATE) ***** THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2016 PASSED ON IA IN SC NO.568/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA FILED U/O VII RULE 11 OF CPC., R/W SEC.VIII AND XVI OF SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT., TO DISMISS THE SUIT.
THESE CRPs’ COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 23/02/2016 passed by the XXIII Addl. Small Causes Judge and XXI ACMM, Bangalore, SCCH No.23, on an application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, to reject the plaint and in S.C.No.567/2013. The court below has rejected the application.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent – plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment in S.C.No.567/2013 against the petitioner – defendant stating that he has purchased the schedule shop premises from Smt.Prem Kaur Estate, a trust represented by its beneficiaries, whereas, the said trust never inducted any tenants but it was M/s.Kapur Brothers, who inducted the tenants and respondent did not produce any documents such as lease agreements or rental receipts to show that the petitioner is the tenant in respect of the schedule shop premises. That there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant and the petitioner was never a tenant in respect of the suit schedule premises and that the suit filed by the respondent is mis-joinder of the necessary parties and that the trial court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit and the same was to be rejected in limine since plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing Old no.9 and new No.8, New Corporation No.134, Belli Basavanna Temple Street, Bangalore, measuring East to West 11 feet and North to South 21.6 sq. feet and it totally measures 237 sq. feet. That the shop premises measures less than 14 sq. mtrs. That defendant was never a tenant in respect of the suit schedule shop under the plaintiff and that the rent of the schedule shop was Rs.3,000/- is absolutely a false statement.
3. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record.
4. It is seen that the Court below dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC r/w Sections VIII and XVI of Small Causes Court Act, on the ground that already both side evidence is over, matter is partly heard and case is posted for judgment and at that stage application is not maintainable.
I do not find any good reasons to admit these petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE *mvs